Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
resolved Does YMMV have a different standard for natter than Main? Anime
Hi,
This edit
for YMMV.The 100 Girlfriends Who Really Really Really Really Really Love You strikes me as natter. I was looking to edit the paragraph so that it doesn't look like the wiki arguing with itself, but before I do, I wanted to check whether YMMV has a different (lower?) standard for natter than Main.
My reasoning is given that the opinions expressed in YMMV tend to be subjective, does that mean that it's acceptable for Tropers to respond/debate under an entry?
resolved Reporting EditWar (NVM, taking directly to MODS)
- On November 23rd, 2024
, Tropers/BK-notburgerking edited the Adaptation Relationship Overhaul entry for Momo Yaoyorozu on The Best Case Scenario, if you're being "realistic", adding the detail "as they have far more respect for her (and less for Bakugo or Todoroki) than they ever did in canon."
- On June 11th, 2025
, Rebel Falcon (Myself) edited the entry to remove that detail, leaving the edit reason "They had plenty of respect for her in canon".
- The same day, not even 4 hours later
, BK-notburgerking readded the trope, with the edit reason "Not nearly to the same extent as here, especially considering how often others take the spotlight in canon", enacting an Edit War.
This reached the point I had brought it up in ATT once before
resulting in their being suspended, had to open up another ATT just to get permission to revert the edits like I was originally aiming for
, and then get a notification half a year later because they responded to the ATT long after the decision had been made requiring I mark the topic as resolved since it already had been long resolved.
Requesting assistance in this matter, possibly moderator intervention as well. I would send them a PM notifier, but I blocked them from my PM's last year after the original ATT issue, so someone else will have to.
Edited by RebelFalconresolved Preventing edit war from continuing Film
The troper ~Remnant 43 has been repeatedly adding Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist to the villain Remmick's character sheet on Sinners (2025). They first did so here
, giving an edit reason. I disagree with the use of the trope and others did too as another troper, ~Wet Flannels altered the trope back to Well-Intentioned Extremist here
. Remnant altered it back once again here
with a frankly rude and accusatory edit reason this time.
This feels rather like the issue we ran into with one troper insisting Charles zi Britannia from Code Geass was a Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist based on the work's protagonist's line about him being selfish. A villain can be selfish and have a god complex. Well-Intentioned Extremist just requires they believe in what they're saying and this applies to Remmick. He's absorbing people in his vampire Hive Mind and wants to recreate his lost culture but he repeatedly states it will be a happy world, he believes in equality and Remnant's arguments hit of trying to play up the fact he has negative traits to allege his good intentions are wholly shut down, which isn't the case.
That's my stance at least, the much bigger problem is Remnant continually re-adding the trope and their attitude given in their latest edit reason.
Thoughts?
Edited by PassingThroughopenhow do I make folders work?
I kept trying to make character folders for South of Midnight and... well you can look for yourself am I just stupid or what's going on?
openMaking threads for quality upgrades on Image Pickin
So, in the Image Pickin forum, if the image that you suggested is the same image on the trope page, but it's an upgrade in the quality of the image, is it okay to start a thread in the Image Pickin forum for upgrading the quality of the image or can you just edit the image in the trope page yourself?
openEasily Forgiven playing withs/lack audience reaction part?
Easily Forgiven is now YMMV, which no longer allows playing withs. So I question these (otherwise valid given they got audience contention) MLP examples.
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 2 E 26 A Canterlot Wedding Part 2: Granted, they were tricked and all, but Twilight holds absolutely no resentment towards everypony for turning their backs on her. It must be the two seasons worth of friendship lessons. Just copied from the main page. Doesn't explain why audiences found the forgives too easy. (Also a whole rabbit hole of fans debate about matter.)
YMMV.My Little Pony Equestria Girls 1: Sunset Shimmer goes from attempting to murder the Mane Six to being accepted as their friend in the span of about three minutes. Previously removed
as played with (downplayed/played for laughs in first movie, subverted/deconstructed in sequel). If a character is no longer considered this (given how effectively sequel redeemed her), is it retroactively not an example? Does factually inaccurate reasons for the audience reaction disqualify it or not?
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 26 The Cutie Remark Part 2: Debatable, as Starlight did witness how her actions could've destroyed all of Equestria and has to live with that fact, which she clearly feels horrible about. She also had to travel to Our Town and seek their forgiveness. It is also discussed as Applejack points out that someone like Starlight can't be let to roam around free as powerful and unhinged as she is and Twilight pointing out how powerful friendship really is in Equestria. Not to mention that no-one seems to even mention all the serious crimes Starlight had committed in this episode, some of which (conspiring against and assaulting a crowned princess) could even be considered acts of treason against Equestria. Move just swapped "Played with" for "Debatable". Half arguing for/against applying as written.
Questions about reworking to be valid:
- Do they have to explain the audience reaction to the forgiveness to be valid EF?
- How to keep the Sunset and Starlight examples from being redundant with Unintentionally Unsympathetic which already covers the reasons audiences say them such? Should UU just not mention in-universe forgiveness?
- What to do with Broken Base examples? Should fan debate on such be included if applicable? Or does that make it too arguing against self and should go under BB or Base-Breaking Character entires instead?
Asking here because every time I asked the EF cleanup thread, I kept getting no feedback to my questions.
openSingle-issue wonk over a character's butt
A rather alarming amount of edits by WateverIdk
are about Nightwing/Dick Grayson's butt or sex scenes. This character is a Mr. Fanservice whose nudity is milked by DC Comics all the time, so it's understandable that he would fit a lot of sex tropes, but the user in question still appears to be way too enthusiastic about this topic. Some of their noticeable additions include:
- Harley Quinn page
: "Of course, many scenes show off his ass in its full glory, like the photo shoot where we get close-ups to it completely bare in some nice poses, or that one time he covered himself with a towel with two giant holes that perfectly framed his buttocks."
- Gotham Knights
:
- "Both gameplay and cutscenes make it almost impossible to avoid noticing Nightwing's rather glorious ass."
- "Similarly to Barbara, it's pretty much unavoidable during his gameplay that you'll be starring at Dick's famous buttocks in Sensual Spandex. Many cutscenes play with the trope as well, an example being when he meets Harley and the perspective changes to give us quite the close-up shot of his ass. It has to be said that the developers have admitted to feel very comfortable with the size of Nightwing's backside, with some skins making his suit more noticeably skintight to showcase it in full glory."
- Mr Fanservice
: "Nightwing (2016) has issue #26, which opens up on Dick taking a shower, and issue #35, which shows him entering a cold bath; both instances going as far as showing his bare buttocks in their full glory."
Wondering how the examples in question should be modified, if necessary.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. Took another look at this troper's edit history and virtually all their edits are about men's butts, either animated or live-action. Looks like some serious one-handed troping...
Edited by TantaMontyopenMagazines
I want to write pages for a few comic magazines (think EC's stuff, Out of the Night, and Dark Mysteries), but the main thing I keep tripping over is that I don't know whether to put them under Magazine or Comic Book.
- Administrivia.Namespace gives no specifics on what does or does not fall under Magazine and Comic Book.
- Looking through the list at Anthology Comic, most entries are Comic Book, but a few are Magazine and some that use Comic Book as namespace are described as magazines. I can't figure out what the (general; I do know about Creepy specifically) deciding factor is, if there is one to begin with. The list at Magazines does not make things any clearer either.
- Taking a step back and going purely with my own thought process, if something like Weird Tales is a "magazine" that contains "literature", then something like Strange Tales is a "magazine" that contains "comic( book)s" and should not itself be under Comic Book. Furthering that sentiment on my end is that there's a few of these magazines that have a feature comic under the same name, such as Supernaturals, and they could have separate pages. If they were both under Comic Book, you'd have something like "ComicBook/SupernaturalsMagazine" and "ComicBook/SupernaturalsComic" and that looks infuriating.
My guess is that TVT does not have any guidelines/rules yet on this matter and that the use of "Comic Book" for what seem to me magazines flowed over from the (super)hero side of it, where magazine and comic book are roughly the same thing. If that's correct, then I take it this is not the right place to ask. I'm not opposed to seeing if I can get a discussion started; which forum would be best for that?
Relatedly, I can't find anything about whether magazines (and similar anthology works) are exempt from needing tropes. A number of magazine pages have no tropes, while for instance four out of five of Weird Tales tropes seem ZCE and not really applicable to the magazine to me. I would guess magazines are exempt because they are a variation of creator pages and come with the same difficulties in trope gathering, but creator pages explicitly don't need tropes and I can't find anything like that for magazines.
Edited by Pfff133openPotential spoiler issues for an image caption
The page Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam G Quuuuuu X had a "click to show" image added by user DinoCam1795 to the folder for the character Nyaan where the caption to click to see the image was labelled "Zeon Uniform (spoilers)". While it does warn people viewing the page that spoilers are shown if you click the image, the caption itself was self-defeating since her joining Zeon is a spoiler in of itself (for reference, every mention of Nyaan's role in Zeon is under a spoiler tag). I made an edit to the page changing the caption to read "click to see spoilers" in line with similar instances I've seen on other pages where an image depicting certain appearances is a spoiler with the edit reason "I feel like mentioning it's a Zeon uniform in the caption makes the spoiler warning a moot point.". However, user Kuruni changed the caption back (minus the "(spoilers)" portion) with the edit reason "How can anyone know if they will be spoiled or not without clicking its first? If it bother people so much, why put the image here at all?". In the interest of not starting an editing war, is this fine or should the caption be adjusted in some other way to avoid spoilers?
Edited by Kirby0189openTrope misuse Literature
Beastpower 87 has repeatedly added Moral Event Horizon entries to the Harry Potter page that aren't accurate, such as saying Snape crossed it in Book 5 by not teaching Occlumency properly despite the fact he's portrayed as redeeming himself, and claiming Hermione crossed it despite her being one of the heroes which means it wasn't intended by the author (and she's claimed to have crossed it by wiping her parents' memories despite this being to protect them).
Edited by Javertshark13resolved How to not turn this accidentally into an edit war
This will be a complex one, so bear with me for a moment.
Tief Blau cut from YMMV.Roadwarden entry describing Serial Numbers Filed Off. No edit reason, no nothing, just slashed it. That was my own entry, so re-instating it would be an edit war.
I started discussion, asking for reason. No answer. I can't PM them (don't ask) to summon them, either. And on top of that, TiefBlau did a grand total of 4 edits across past 7 years, so I sincerely doubt they will show up any time soon anyway.
What to do then? I don't know why the entry was cut, I can't put it back as it was and I don't know what to change in it to make it valid (assuming it was invalid in the first place and not cut on a whim).
So what's the procedure here?
.
PS
If there is something at fault with the entry itself
, then help a bloke fix it and thus it will be a non-issue for potential edit-warring
resolved What's the "different things, different rules" trope called?
What's the trope called where different powers are subject to different rules, thus allowing the writers to make up whatever they want without creating inconsistencies?
For example, at 2:48 - 4:07 of this video: https://youtu.be/dWAkcrplBJ0?t=168
you can see Goku giving an overly-detailed explanation about how the Fusion Dance and Potara Earrings are two completely different things, and thus, we don't need a justification for why one works inside Majin Buu's body but the other doesn't. It's justified *because they're different,* and because they're both made up magical items, Toriyama can make up whatever rules he wants for each without contradicting himself, no matter how arbitrary those differences may seem otherwise.
Another example of this trope comes at 2:22 - 2:47 of this video: https://youtu.be/a_b8O4HMXTk?t=142
. In that episode, it was explained that the device Billy used last season to undo his de-aging had a belated side effect. This doesn't create an inconsistency with the other power rangers. Why aren't they also rapidly aging? Easy: Because they used the Zeo Crystal to reverse their de-aging, not the device powered by the old power coins. Different macguffin, therefore, different rules apply. No further explanation necessary.
An example where this DOESN'T apply can be found at 19:05 - 19:25 of this video: https://youtu.be/gcSRUZ0oNq0?t=1145
. Billy explains he can't become the Gold Ranger because, when the Command Center blew up, he absorbed a large amount of [insert random technobabble here], causing his body to resist the Gold Ranger powers.
But that doesn't make one bit of sense. At 7:07 - 7:17 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cynLGdMWoVs&t=427s
, Billy explains that the Gold Ranger powers are identical to the Zeo powers the other rangers already had. They were standing in the exact same spot when the Command Center blew up, and yet they were able to accept the Zeo Powers at the start of the series without any problems.
So, this is a case where it's NOT "different things," and therefore, it should follow that you can't just make up an explanation for one character that doesn't also apply to the others. It's the same powers, and the same explanation for why Billy couldn't take them should also apply to the other rangers. So the writers really dropped the ball in that little exchange.
So what is this writing trope called, where you can quickly and easily explain away seemingly arbitrary treatment on the grounds that different mystical and/or sci-fi macguffins were used?
openConsidering making a page spoilers-off
There are several folders on Characters.Iris Hawthorne Ace Attorney where almost all of the entries are spoiler-tagged, to the point that I've made several of them spoilers-off. I'm considering doing this to the whole page because others folders still have self-fulfilling spoilers, but I think I should get a consensus first.
openExample with unnecessary mention of Rule 34? Videogame
So, regarding this example from the Unnecessary Makeover page:
- Midna in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess thinks little of the form in which she's trapped for most of the game; she refers to herself as a "hideous little imp" and jokes with Link that her true form is so beautiful that it leaves him speechless when he first sees it. However, many players find her initial implike design cuter, more unique, and conveying more of her sassy appeal. It's not uncommon for people to joke that Midna's imp form essentially proved the codifier for "shortstack" designs (i.e. a short, busty female character with curves), and artwork of Midna's imp form far outweighs her true form, even—hell, especially on porn sites.
That last part really seems to me like a case of Too Much Information, especially with the way it's worded. I was going to remove it, but I thought I should ask first, because maybe I'm just being too prudish.
Edited by BluethornopenUser with issues with drama importation and grammar
So this is discussing about Pc 98 Fan, who in spite of their username, is actually more involved with Forsaken (Roblox) rather than the PC-98. Unfortunately, when it comes to the game itself, that has attracted quite the attention due to the actions of its creator Souldrivenlove, who due to the massive amounting controversies, had to transfer ownership of the game to others. And when it comes to discussing it, Pc98Fan seems to be obsessed with discussing everything about it, and I mean everything- including the drama. While a stern warning from both YMMV and the Memes pages to not import drama seems to be enough, the Trivia page seems to be an exception, albeit because it's mostly discussing the real life actions. Even then, it's riddled with errors. Here's one example of the page that was mostly edited by them, since they have done so many edits to the page:
- Role-Ending Misdemeanor:
- Soul himself heavily felt into this after being exposed by big Youtubers like Parlo and Ruben Sim, eventually resulting in him making two documents going over his past controversies in order to make himself clear. Thankfully, he was able to spin everything around by the end, resulting in his reputation getting cleaned up for the most part and many apologizing to him. Eventually the controversies were too damning for Soul to continue working on the game, resulting in the ownership of the game being transferred to Hytoko and Basil on May.
Already I can see multiple issues, such as the usage of the Overshadowed by Controversy even though it hasn't been a year since the controversy passed (and it's still ongoing today), several grammar issues, etc. I feel like discussing some part of the drama if affects development is ok, but discussing every single part of it is what grinds my absolute gears. Something should be done about this.
openCall-Back vs. Continuity Nod Live Action TV
I came very often upon examples of Call-Back that don't fit for not being plot-significant, and move them to Continuity Nod. As the description of the trope specifies:
- [A Call-Back is m]ore or less a Shout-Out to itself — but if that's all that it's doing, then it's a Continuity Nod; a Call-Back brings back an element that is actually relevant again.
However, on Andor S2E10 "Make It Stop", one such move of mine was reverted by palm529sw, despite the two concerned examples being pure flavor with no relevance at all to the episode. I did PM this editor, but got no response yet.
I'd like to have confirmation that my interpretation of Call-Back is correct, and that I can move the two examples back to Continuity Nod without being accused of edit warring.
Edited by StFanopenAgenda-based editing Live Action TV
A large portion of regularmordecai’s
edits here center around the Stranger Things scene where Eleven hits Angela with a skate for bullying her (most of them are on the show’s YMMV page) and it definitely seems agenda-based as they keep pushing the message that fans shouldn’t have enjoyed that scene and exaggerating Eleven’s actions (such as calling her a school shooter despite the fact that she didn’t kill anyone). This has been going on for about ten months now and on several occasions I tried making these entries more neutral but they promptly edited them again to add additional complaints, often using weasel words to make it sound like much of the fandom agrees with them when it’s likely just their personal opinion. They recently added an entry
under the Nightmare Fuel page bashing real-life fans for thinking Angela had it coming and calling them “foolhardy”
for allegedly saying they wished they could have done the same to their bullies (and the entry is improper at any rate since the page is about the show itself, not real-life events).
openSentences comparing Work A and Work B, even if the comparisons are questionable
What to do if a work's description or intro paragraph claims that it's similar to one or more works that are more well-known in pop culture, but such claims are questionable or dubious?
For example, the intro paragraph of Bloody Spell begins with this, which was originally written by other troper(s):
- Dark Souls in ancient China. With ALL the extra fanservice.
Bloody Spell, a.k.a 嗜血印, is a wuxia-themed action game developed by Yilong Games, one based on Wide-Open Sandbox Action RPG games made popular in recent years, with Elden Ring, Dark Souls and Bayonetta as it's most distinct inspiration... except recycled in the Ming Dynasty.
This sounds like cases of X Meets Y and Recycled In Space examples, but some of the comparisons sound like they're stretching it. Specifically, it's rather odd for the description to say it's "Dark Souls", but then lists a game comparison (Bayonetta) that is not based on Dark Souls. There are several reasons why I'm questioning the game's intro having to compare itself to several other games:
- I've played the game itself (hence why I'm troping it), and comparisons on other online forums/websites such as Steam simply call it a traditional Hack and Slash or an action game with very few Soulslike elements. It's true that you can drink a potion to restore health, and Money Is Experience Points applies just like a Dark Souls game, but you can also relentlessly or aggressively attack enemies, and a dodging mechanic makes it closer to a Bayonetta game instead. There's no such thing as a Stamina meter in this game (it's a Mana Meter instead). It's also easy to overpower enemies, so it isn't known for being Nintendo Hard. The game is also extremely fast-paced, there's a bit of mid-air combat or combos, and you don't exactly have to wait for your enemies' attack patterns all the time, so it also takes cues from games like Devil May Cry than just Dark Souls.
- Bloody Spell is not a Wide-Open Sandbox, The main story mode is made out of linear stages; it's not an open world, while the other modes are in enclosed or limited spaces, so the Elden Ring comparison is questionable.
- The game does intentionally compare itself to another IP, as one difficulty mode's description outright mentions it would play like Ninja Gaiden. There's even an alternate gameplay mode that blatantly imitates a mode from Devil May Cry.
- The game likely changed a lot, as it took a while for it to be released in Version 1.0, so the Soulslike similarities may have been diluted, and the game became more similar to traditional hack-and-slash games instead. Worse, some planned features, modes and gameplay mechanics from previous versions might have been excised or cut, creating some left-over misinformation in its description from both its TV Tropes page and the index pages where it's listed.
I'm really thinking of either deleting the paragraphs or sentences that compare it to other games, or at best, trim or rewrite them instead and just leave fewer comparisons... But I also want to ask if there's an existing clean-up thread for these kinds of things, like a "Comparison Clean-Up Thread" or something.
Alternatively, is there an existing Administrivia guideline that says comparisons between works should be placed somewhere else (like Follow the Leader and Spiritual Successor on the Trivia or YMMV pages) instead of the main work page's intro paragraph?
Heck, I could've sworn there was a similar topic back then, as when Black Myth: Wukong was released, there was a huge online discourse/debate on whether it's a Soulsborne or just a traditional action game like God of War. The Discussion tab

So Franchise.The DC Universe Film Universe has been launched, and I'm not sure if that was the agreed upon name that should be used. It feels clunky to me, and very easy to missearch, on top of the fact that there is no "The" used, and it's going to confuse alot of people. Myself and others were already working on Sandbox.DC Universe 2024, and while I don't want to use a year disambiguator, idk what else to do.
Edited by GateStarX